Thank you for your information. I’m looking for the information related to VisVSA. However, it’s not easy to find. Could you provide more information related to modeling methodology about this software or the direction to find information?

Since you ask, the best place to get information on VisVSA and related applications about the overall modeling is Geometric Solutions. They are a .net company on the web. It is a UGS (now Siemens) product, but the guys at Geometric know the application perhaps the best of anyone.

Basically, VisVSA uses the JT neutral format of models to add 3D GD&T to part features. It then uses those features to assemble parts together (constraints). From there you setup what you want to measure among the parts. Run monte carlo simulations to get a process report, histogram, and pareto of contributors for the measurements created.

3D annotation is a good direction for the future and present when communicating with engineers, technologist and designers. But.... lets take it to the shop floor and WHAM!!!!! Comments start to surface such as "Oh sure this makes your job easier but not ours." Teaching those the shop floor is a huge investment not to mention all the plots that they're going to have to manage above and beyond the ones that the office produced.

I know the culture issue with the shop. That too has been around for way too long. But then again, the shop environment is changing. Many companies have converted over to "electronic" 2d drawings where shop personnel open prints up using on the line computers. And they have been doing it for years.

The future view is that the same people simply open a 3D model the same way they open 2D except it is simply much much much much much easier to read.

For shop floors still depending on "paper", again technology through API programming and advances in 3D adobe, make it all to easy to provide all the orthographic views with all the tolerance and note information in the now old fashioned format "automatically".

So, yes I hear you. And, yes we need to take of the entire "work flow" of the part definition, but the answers are there and the investments will save money.

Well this certainly has been a passionate thread... just a few words about 'Adobe 3D' to respond to Brent's question. (Full disclosure: I am a technical evangelist at Adobe focused on PDF and the mfg industry).

eDrawings is a great tool and the differences really come down to scope and requirements of specific business processes.

The current feature set of Acrobat 3D version 8 really has been driven by 3D MBD requirements and for many of the use cases listed in this thread - specifically, how do you package all the relevant product data including a fully annotated 3D model or assembly and distribute that information efficiently (low/no cost viewer, small file size, appropriate interrogation tools, etc). The scope of this requirement is where you start to see the differences relative to many of the view and markup tools available on the market including eDrawings.

To be specific:

With PDF you can aggreagate multiple types of information into a single PDF document including 3D with MBD annotations, eDrawings just handles the 3D data and 2D drawings., I.e, no spec sheets, project plans, etc. that all has to be sent separately.

eDrawings stores all geometry as a surface tessellation; PDF v1.7 provides for precise B-Rep storage of geometry and subsequent extraction of that precise geometry to STEP, IGES, or Parasolid with Acrobat 3D for reuse by suppliers.

Full SDK and Javascript APIs - anyone can use the Javascript interface of Acrobat and/or the free developer SDK to create custom behaviors that can be attached to document entities or 3D geometry stored in PDF. Developers can also access the geometry *and* MBD annotations (a.k.a., FTA, GDT, PMI) for extraction and reuse in their applications all with free and open APIs or format specifications.

Also - PDF has built in security capabilities like digital certificates and signatures, and encryption that make it suitable for use cases that require approval as well as long term archiving.

There are some sample PDFs available here; the 'Transmission Order Form' near the bottom is probably the most comprehensive example and shows how 3D content can be leveraged as an information navigation system and integrated with PDF forms and digital signatures in the context of a compound document. These types of capabilities are not within the scope of products like eDrawings.

I certainly aplaud and fully support the new Adobe 3D technology and the answer is reasonably complete. Thank you.

I think too though that readers should be aware that other viewers are available that also provide all the information in a single light weight file using the JT format. The viewers are also easy to use and come in a price range of free to a bit pricey but it all depends on the need of the users. The so called "pricey" ones offer "high end" digital prototype capability for considerable analysis well beyond the simple "reading" and "visualization" of parts and assemblies.

The Adobe solution is nice because only the author buys the authoring tool and users/readers only need to use the "free" reader that we are all too familiar with when it comes to the pdf format. But again, there are light low cost and no cost viewers packaged with the UGS products that produce this 3D PMI, meta data attributes, and precise geometry translated into the JT format. Other systems are also tapping into the JT format technology to follow suite.

The message here is not one of competition among viewers. It is that the technology continues to develop and will continue to build an infrastructure that will provide many options for accessing the information on the 3D model. No different then having a choice of many CAD systems where as back in the day there were only 2 or 3 worth mentioning. The 3D annotation capability is 10 years old. It just takes more companies like Adobe and programs like the JT Open program to build this infrastructure and spoon feed the culture into developing and accepting new innovative lean and more accurate ways of defining design requirements as well as interpretation of the design requirements.

I might mention too, that it is all so interesting that SolidWorks is now advertising Y14.41 compliant 3D annotation capability. I am looking forward to trying that out. But, I have to also "assume" that the company will work on getting the information into their edrawings soon, if they haven't already dones so. Maybe even the JT format too! eh? Anyone listening? :-)

Bottom line - 3D annotation is here. It has been here for 10 years. And it is here to stay and grow.

Are you using a version of SolidWorks that has the 3D annotation (PMI)? From what I have seen in the sales brochures, it looks pretty good and it appears they did a good job of leveraging it for FAST 2D drafting. It will be interesting to here how well, if at all, the PMI shows up in 3D Adobe.

For now I am using SolidEdge for numerous business reasons. So, when I get some experience with that one, I'll let you know. Another system, which from what I have seen is just "lights out" for modeling is SpaceClaim; very impressive. They too have 3D PMI but I have not had a demo on it yet, but will. And I do have the free trial to try it out. I'll be interested to know if their PMI goes over to the JT file. BTW - SpaceClaim has the JT translator OTB. Are you listening SolidWorks?

As for convincing an organization to go 3D PMI, there just isn't any one answer. It's just classic croney issues that keep our society from going for it. But look at what is happening. High end system like I-DEAS was the only one with PMI. In fact, I-DEAS (when it was SDRC) was the one who coined the acronym PMI. NX soon followed suit after the merger of SDRC and UGS. Keep in mind too though that even the older UG system had embedded 3D GD&T and is quite powerful. But now look at the mid-range market. SolidEdge has had PMI for a while now and SolidWorks is finally getting on board and like I mentioned SpaceClaim. Owe and BTW Catia also has the capability. Owe and there is now an ASME Standard, now 4 years old, ASME Y14.41-2003 that defines how PMI is to be displayed, queried, etc.

What more common sense does "leadership" need to see the light. If it's wait and see what the other guys do first, then they should turn in their year end bonus! That's not leadership.